Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 01960-02
Original file (01960-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC 20370.510

0

CRS
Docket No: 1960-02
8 May 2002

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 1 May 2002.
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board.
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies.

Your allegations of error and

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence
error or injustice.

of probable material

The Board found that on 8 December 1999
advanced pay grade program of the Naval
military service, on 11 May 2000 you were sent to a two day
military training course.
complete the required courses.

you enlisted in the
Reserve.

However, you refused to train and

Having no prior

The commanding officer then recommended that you be separated
with an honorable discharge by reason of unsatisfactory
participation.
to waive the right to submit a statement in response to the
discharge action.
recommendation for separation was approved and you were honorably
discharged on 17 May 2000.
reenlistment code of RE-4.

When informed of this recommendation, you elected

After review by the discharge authority, the

At that time, you were assigned a

As a reservist you were incorrectly given a reenlistment code.
However, you were not recommended for reenlistment.. Such a
recommendation was appropriate for a reservist separated by
reason of unsatisfactory participation.

The Board considered

your contention that you had a personal problem when you were
sent to training, but concluded that no change to the record is
necessary.
names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished
upon request.

Accordingly, your application has been denied.

The

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
You are entitled to have the
favorable action cannot be taken.
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director



Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04759-02

    Original file (04759-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 August 2002. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. contract required...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 05109-06

    Original file (05109-06.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 September 2006. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2003 | 03489-03

    Original file (03489-03.PDF) Auto-classification: Denied

    After review by the discharge authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 22 December 2000 you were discharged with an other than honorable At that time, you were assigned a reenlistment code discharge. In fact, you were not recommended Concerning your request to change the RE-4 reenlistment code, as a drilling reservist you should not have a reenlistment code. The Board did not consider whether your characterization of service or reason for separation should be...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600389

    Original file (ND0600389.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I would like the board to please review my case and give me am upgrade of honorable and a reenlistment code of RE-1.Sincerely, (Applicant’s rank and signature) PO3 M_ R_ (Applicant) ” Issues as stated on an additional attached letter also dated December 4, 2005:I would like to respond to the statement of the commanding officer J. E. R_. 050318: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Reserve, Fort Worth, notified Commander, Navy Personnel Command (PERS-913), that the Applicant was discharged on...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 05122-01

    Original file (05122-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 1 August 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. authority, the recommendation for separation was approved and on 20 March 1998 you were discharged with an other than honorable At that time you were assigned a...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2005 | 06815-05

    Original file (06815-05.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.The Board found that you enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve on 7 November 1986. After review by...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05852-00

    Original file (05852-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 31 January 2001. injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative of this regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of Board. In this regard, your enlistment You On 30 November When informed of the recommendation, you elected to You received a general discharge from At that time you...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0501110

    Original file (ND0501110.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Commanding Officer’s comments: “Per reference (a), member was administratively discharged from the Naval Service on 12 September 1994 due to unsatisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve as evidenced by his failure to complete NPSAC Phase III Training. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be...

  • CG | BCMR | Other Cases | 2009-054

    Original file (2009-054.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SUMMARY OF THE RECORD On September 8, 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve for eight years. The applicant stated that she was transferred to the IRR because of downsizing and unit disbandment and that the letter she received dated November 21, 1995, “said it all and it should be considered.” The letter told her that she would receive more information soon, but she did not. The letter dated November 21, 1995, however, supports the applicant’s contention that she was...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00831

    Original file (MD04-00831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant failed to submit a statement within the authorized 20 day period.921008: Letter of intent to administratively separate under other than honorable conditions for the failure to participate in reserve training was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. When personally served with the notification of separation proceedings letter, acknowledgement to rights, and the purpose and scope of the BCNR and NDRB on 8 October 1992, PFC M__ indicated that he would gladly sign...